“This Act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to provide adequate procedures for the certification and registration of a civil union and provide persons entering into a civil union with the obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses.” (750 ILCS 75/5)

In short, anyone in a civil union gets the same state benefits as someone who is married. The act even puts in purposefully broad language about being ‘liberally construed’ to implement the purpose and spirit of the law.

“IITA Section 502(c) permits joint returns only when a joint return is filed federally. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (which is being challenged in the courts) does not allow joint returns by partners to a civil union, so the IITA does not allow joint returns either.”

Joint tax-filing for couples in civil unions was one of the main benefits quoted during the debate of the new law in Illinois, yet even the broad language and clear intent of the Civil Unions Act couldn’t erase the confusion in the Department of Revenue over how to treat the different status of same-sex couples.

It seems the attention from the media and activists alike have cleared up some of that confusion. Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Revenue, confirmed Monday that at the request of Governor Pat Quinn, the state has issued new guidelines allowing couples in civil unions to file jointly, electing to file state taxes as “married, filed jointly” or “married, filed separately” just as married spouses do. Couples will still have to file federal tax returns individually.

Joint state tax filings are an important part of the benefits supposedly provided to same-sex couples in civil unions. While it is a move in the right direction that this tax loophole is fixed, it is a glaring example of why separate is never equal. We decided long ago that segmenting minorities out for separate treatment can never create equality. Creating new, separate, and different levels of rights and recognition among committed couples only creates further inequity, confusion, and discord, even internally among states that seek to expand rights.

This is a RedEye community blog. The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and not those of RedEye or Tribune Company.